You Won't Believe Who Wants Harry Potter Dead
Filed under: Action, Sci-Fi & Fantasy, Family Films, Harry Potter, Remakes and Sequels
OK, I'm not above using a sensationalistic headline to grab people's attention. It's not so much that actor Daniel Radcliffe wants to kill off the character he's played in four (soon to be five) films based on the books of J.K. Rowling, but he seems to think that's the logical place for the story to end. According to Sci Fi Wire, Radcliffe spoke to a group of journalists on November 6 via conference call from London, and had this to say when asked if he thought he would one day be playing a death scene for Harry. "That's a very good question," he said. "I like to think that I will. I think, personally, that's the only way [Rowling] could ever halt any call for her to keep writing [Harry Potter books], because, I mean, if Harry survives, she'll just be getting plagued by requests to write an eighth book for the rest of her life." Rowling has, in fact, stated that two characters will die in the final novel, and who's to say one of them won't be Harry himself?Radcliffe went on to say that he sees a parallel between how Harry might die, and the death of another famous literary character. "I think it will be something to do with the fact that, maybe the only way Voldemort can be killed is if Harry is killed as well. "My friend sort of compared it to both [Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty] dying at the same time. But, obviously, he hasn't read the sequel [in which Holmes was revived]. So, yes, but that's the thing that I would sort of like to see coming." This seems to play into something Radcliffe said in an interview back in August, where he supposed that the mystical and personal connection between Harry and Voldemort might require both of them to die.
This certainly isn't the first (or even the second) time Radcliffe has suggested that Harry might be taking the old dirt nap by the end of the series. It was almost precisely a year ago that he voiced a similar opinion (as reported here on Cinematical). Maybe the Halloween season stirs up morbid thoughts for the young actor, though I suspect it has more to do with him not wanting to be stereotyped as Harry Potter for the rest of his career, and who can blame him. Radcliffe's decision to appear in a London stage production of Equus (again, you read it here on Cinematical) in a role that will require him to be nude on stage, reminded me of Christopher Reeve's decision to star in Monsignor. In that film, the star of the Superman series played a priest who, among other things, carried on an affair with a nun. It seemed like a calculated maneuver to distance himself somewhat from the role that had made him famous, and to prove that he was capable of other things as an actor.
As far as Rowling being "plagued" with demands from irate fans for the series to continue beyond the proposed seven novels, that's going to happen whether Harry survives or not. In the Harry Potter universe, death is only permanent when it is dramatically convenient. There's no reason to believe Harry couldn't die in one book, but get better in time for the next.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
11-09-2006 @ 2:21PM
Cath said...
So much for the "boy who lived." Kinda makes his parents' sacrifice wasteful. While a manichean or zero-sum worldview seems popular these days, I find it excessively predictable and dispiriting. It's like saying, why bother?, which is not a good theme for children's literature. They can wait until they get into college before they go all existential on us.
Reply
11-09-2006 @ 3:04PM
Dakotah said...
In the series; "The Boy Who Lived" doesn't make his parents sacrifice wasteful. Harry may not have been "The Boy Who Lived" if Voldemort hadn't read the prophecy. As for being crucial to a child's reading, its a book. I think that it is the author's choice to decide how the story unravels and no one else's. J.K. Rowling has done a phenomenal job writing seven books that all show more mystery and suspense in it's magical world than the previous book.
Reply
11-09-2006 @ 3:17PM
Neil said...
I hasten to note that Rowling said, "I have to say that two die that I didn't intend to die."
I think implicit in that is that more than two people will die. Admittedly, this is along with the statement that "one character got a reprieve", but I'm skeptical she only intended one character to die in book seven and that one single character got a reprieve.
Reply
11-09-2006 @ 3:31PM
Michael said...
"In the Harry Potter universe, death is only permanent when it is dramatically convenient. There's no reason to believe Harry couldn't die in one book, but get better in time for the next."
Sorry, but that's...how can I put it...the opposite of right. In fact, it's wrong. Quite wrong. Death is permanent in the Potterverse, and Rowling makes something of a point of it in the books.
Reply
11-09-2006 @ 6:44PM
cassi said...
when will the new book be out??
Reply
11-09-2006 @ 4:52PM
BarbieLee said...
Harry Potter is a classic hero, or somebody who risks reputation and, ultimately, life, for their society's beliefs. Harry's society believes that Voldemort is the enemy, and so Harry will sacrifice himself to end Voldemort's existence. As much as all readers wouldn't like to see the hero being killed off, in order to make the Harry Potter series complete Harry will have to die.
Reply
11-09-2006 @ 4:57PM
The Addict said...
I personally am hoping that Harry will die in book 7 as well. I think it'd be a really good way for Rowling to end the series, as far as closure goes. It'd bring it almost full circle: Harry dies while killing Voldemort, becoming some sort of a martyr. He then goes from being "the boy who lived" to "the boy who died," and is celebrated once again for essentially saving them all.
Reply
11-10-2006 @ 4:09AM
zoora said...
"The boy who lived" haunted everyone that reads of watched. i think the climax of the story is the battle of harry and voldemort, so the dying of harry is another flavour of the story. It will make the whole world cry for him. For me, i wouldnt' want him to die...i want him to be the successor of dumbledore... passing through knowledge to the later generation.. who knows... he might be teaching, voldemort's son...
Reply
11-10-2006 @ 3:45PM
Jo said...
Well if Harry dies in the next book, the I know of a few people including myself that would be heart broken. But if two people are suppose to die in the next book I have a feeling that the two people that are chosen...Harry will be the one to be heart broken. I think that Harry should be the one who destroys Voldemort and live his life as it should have been lived before his parents were killed.
Reply
11-11-2006 @ 12:05PM
priya said...
i dont believe it! i wouldnt ever think the guy who plays the character would think that hes going to die! if harry does die in the 7th book, i will literally cry and cry and cry and wouldnt stop! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
11-11-2006 @ 12:25AM
Neil said...
Once again, AT LEAST two people are going to die in the last book.
One can only believe that ONLY two people are going to die in the last if one believes that she'd originally planned to only kill one person, which I think is an INCREDIBLY dubious possibility.
Reply
11-12-2006 @ 8:24AM
Keith said...
I think Daniel is right. As long as I live on, I would really wished to carry on watching Harry Potter even until I am middle age (I think). So, the way to end it is to "kill" him off, but that'll be a shame, because it will deprive a lot others kids who adore Harry Potter.
Reply
11-11-2006 @ 7:25PM
Shaolin Monk said...
I was wishing he had died in the *first* film.
Reply
11-11-2006 @ 8:06PM
Dana Huff said...
I'm with you on that last paragraph. I'd like to link this for the Harry Potter Carnival.
Reply
11-20-2006 @ 6:11PM
D said...
Its so obvious. Harry potter is the last horcrux and he needs to kill himself to kill voldemort. It makes perfect sense since all the horcruxs have had imperfections in them, harry has the scar. It also seems some times that voldemort is in harry.
Reply
11-11-2006 @ 9:44PM
Kevin said...
I would have to draw a comparison to the very end of Return of The King by Tolkien, Nobody wanted Frodo to sail off with the elves ... in essence die / leave forever ... but that's what happened because Frodo sacrificed himself / his happyness for his society and and his friends ... same with Harry - he will have to sacrifice himself for his society and the happyness of the people around him.
Also because he is so tied to Voldemort - I don't know that I would go as far as to say that he wouldn't want to live after the end of the book like Frodo (sail off forever with the elves) ... but one can certainly draw many congruities from the 2 stories / characters.
Reply
11-12-2006 @ 12:55AM
EmJay said...
Not every story can have a fairy tale ending. Sure, it would be suck-tastic for Harry to die, but sometimes the "hero" has to make the ultimate sacfrice for the greater cause. I honestly think if Harry lives and kills Voldemort, the stories would get boring and dry.
I also don't blame Daniel Radcliffe for how he feels. Who wants to be known as Harry Potter for the rest of their lives? I wouldn't. It's a great thing to have on his resume, but to be taken as a serious actor, he has to have more than Hogwarts, Quidditch, Flying Brooms, and Magic Wands on it.
Reply
11-12-2006 @ 3:44AM
coffeedonkey said...
We don't need to worry about whether this survived boy would finally die or not. Although Rowling wants to get rid of Harry, actually she won't be the one to make the decision. You know, it is us that decide this boy's final destination, Like what happened to Sherlock Holmes, you know.
Don't you think so?
Reply
11-13-2006 @ 1:00AM
Eric said...
I think Daniel's been coached a bit to drop these hints, and I've seen quotes where JK has said the same thing.
To me, this is just a way to keep book 7 interesting. Without seeds of doubt like this being sown, you'd never even consider that Harry might not make it through book 7. The good guy always wins, right?
Well, now you're not quite sure what JK will do with final book, so it's going to be freaking riveting while you read it. Brilliant.
Reply
11-13-2006 @ 4:30PM
Ondrej said...
I perosnally love the Harry Potter series and respect the author and hope that J.K.R doesn't ruin it by NOT killing Harry. I am awaiting the sad 'in a good way' climax of the 7th book and would be disappointed to see this great series ruined by Harry's surivial. Harry's only purpose to live is to kill Voldemort. Once this is fulfilled his life would have no purpose or meaning. I am sure J.K.R won't spin this depressing existentialism on the young readers. Instead, she will emphasise on what H.P has to live for and what he loves, and that is his close friends. Although predictable, I hope he is placed in a situation where the lives of Ron or Hermoine are at stake and Harry will be able to save them by killing Voldemort but at the same time himself. This makes a focus on self sacrifice for those you love (Ron & Herm) in a world where what you loved most was taken away from you (his parents, godfather, Dumbledore). H.P will either have a choice to keep his friends alive or lose the last 2 people he loves. The decision is simple. Movies like Gladiator and Braveheart have a slightly similar theme if the heroes of the films didn't die in the end they would have been awful movies. Finally, C.S Lewis' Narnia, killed Aslan, Disney killed Mufassa in Lion King. Narnia is considered of the best children's literary pieces, Lion King is Disney's greatest Masterpiece. Ultimately self-sacrifice is the echelon of heroism, and we don't want Harry to be a half-assed hero now do we :)
Also keep in mind that they best stories and films are ones that stir your emotions and move you, nothing can be more emotionally stirring in a book or film than having a character you love die. Take my comment with light heartedness, after all it is JUST my perosonal opionion, maybe J.K.R will show another side of a true hero I have not yet seen, but I personally doubt it.
Reply